Authority for the 30 x 30 land reclassification plan

 

Authority for the 30 x 30 land reclassification plan

Jerry G. Schickedanz

The proposal by President Joe Biden to conserve 30 percent of the land and ocean by 2030 will be a major reclassification of land and water uses in the United States.  The ultimate goal to put 50 percent into new use categories by 2050 is even more unsettling when the initial purpose of the conservation or protection classification is the lack of management or the removal of uses on the land.  The end result at the predicted goals will have major implications on private property rights, potential food production, land use/access, economic stability, homeland security and others.

 Where is the authority of the President or Federal Agencies to own and acquire land?  The Founding Fathers intent in writing of the Constitution was to limit the size of the Federal Government.  Since the ratification of the Constitution, the Federal Government through the establishment of land managing agencies with their rulemaking and regulations have been granted the authority to purchase, exchange and condemn land for acquisition purposes. Up until the passage of the Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976, federal controlled lands were being disposed of through the Homestead Acts, Statehood Acts and other means.  This act changed the direction of land disposal to land retention of public land. quisition purposes

Where is the authority to make these new zoning type designations or classifications?  The Senate Resolution 372 and House Resolution 835 were introduced in the 116th Congress and would have been suggestions from Congress if passed, of what would be nice to implement.  President Biden’s executive orders are strong directions to the Executive Branch agencies on what he would like to accomplish by the 2030 timeline to address loss of biodiversity and to fight climate change.  The president alone does not have the broad sweeping authority to accomplish the 30 x 30 goal.  The office does have the ability to set aside federal lands for national monuments with just his signature under the 1906 Antiquities Act. It has been used by almost all presidents since 1906 to designate national monuments and to make them larger or smaller.  It cannot be used to designate state or private land into a national monument. 

Congress can make permanent withdrawals of land through the legislative process, but it is very lengthy in the amount of time to accomplish and is subject to political influences.  

The Federal Government has the power to use eminent domain to acquire lands for public good.  They also have at their discretion the use of the Federal Land and Water Conservation Fund to purchase private land for conservation and recreational uses.  The Secretaries of Interior and Forest Service can make federal land withdrawals of up to 5000 acres and up to 20 years with the consent of Congress under the Federal Land Management and Policy Act of 1976.  The federal land managing agencies such as U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and National Park Service can accept private land as gifts through title transfer by the private landowner. 

The report from the task force assigned by executive order 14008 recognized that there is not enough federal land to accomplish the 30 x 30 goal and it broadened the scope of land to be included for permanent reclassification. It stated “the inclusion of working lands can be consistent with the long term health and sustainability of natural systems.” This will allow lands that are not currently in a natural state to be considered such as farm and pasture land, tree farms and open lands for inclusion.

 The inclusion of private property and tribal sovereign lands must be voluntary.  The voluntary relinquishment of property rights will likely involve local and regional planning designed toward conservation efforts and restorative approaches to contribute to the goals.  Involvement will require participation of local, county, state and tribal governments because of local implications resulting from the permanent land reclassification.  Economic incentives maybe required in order to get private property owners to participate in the reclassification and waving of individual property rights.  Whereas a heavy-handed approach would be implementing unreasonable regulations forcing changes in management that result in a willing seller.  This approach would likely also require collaboration with Non-Governmental Organizations in policing compliance with respect to the property rights taken without any compensation. 

The 30 x 30 campaign to conserve or restore 30 percent of the land and water on which we all depend is a major undertaking and will require participation, understanding and agreement at all levels. It is imperative that negotiations start at the local impact level.

Dr. Schickedanz is the Dean Emeritus of the Ag College at NMSU.

The most important point brought to light by Dr. Schickedanz is the inclusion of "working lands" in the program. Combine that with the fact the feds don't own enough federal land to meet their goal, and you get a vision of where this program is heading.

Ninety percent of all federal land acquisitions are made by the BLM, USFWS, Park Service or Forest Service.  Perhaps one should be looking into their statutory authority to acquire land by purchase, exchange or eminent domain.